Sunday, November 18. 2007

On PBS' Washington Week in Review Friday night, New York Times' reporter David Sanger asked Time magazine's Karen Tumulty what the relative dearth of discussion on Iraq during Thursday's Democratic Party presidential debate said about the "utility" of raising the issue for the party going forward in the campaign season. (The question is asked at about 7:15 in the podcast of the show.)

If that isn't a telling comment on the state of the Democratic Party, I don't know what is.

I've said it repeatedly for a while now, but I'm not sure I've written it here, so I'll do it now: the Democratic Party is not so much a political party anymore as much as it is a public relations firm whose primary target audience is a remedial civics class.

Tom Elia........that's a brilliant observation! The Dems behave like a PR or ad agency shifting their slogans to attract roughly 55% or 60% of the masses, and their target audience is usually quite ignorant about world threats, macro-econonomic issues vis-a-vis taxes and capitalism, civics such as the 3 branches of gov't and presidential war powers...........you name it.......if it's an important topic, the Dems rely on a mainsteam media that will NOT make the subject clear and understandable! -SB

Democrats have not been serious actors in foreign policy/geopolitics since Vietnam. The current Democrats aren't serious about any of the large issues facing America, foreign or domestic, except healthcare. That one they like since they can present a government takeover of the industry in order to nanny citizens to death, I mean health. Democrats are the one-trick-donkeys of politics, problems are solved by "investing" (tax increases) in more government control of people's lives. Really hard problems, like solving the funding nightmares of their past "investments," are ignored or promised more "investment" by dunning those hideous rich people.

Here is a quote from a NYT article concerning Democrat efforts to force withdrawl of troops from Iraq:

"Democratic lawmakers and strategists on Capitol Hill said their hope was that… voters would reward Democrats for their efforts at the polls next November, and that there was no risk to failing again and again."

MY TRANSLATION FROM DEM-SPEAK: This is all about winning the next election, not the war. If we prolong or even lose the war by doing this, the MSM will never put it at our doorstep anyway, so there is little risk in this strategy, except to the troops - which we support.

Please keep in mind, though, that this was essentially one journalist interviewing another -- not either of them interviewing a spokesman for the Democratic Party.

So I'd say that this says a lot more about the mindset of some journalists than it does about Democrats. (I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion; I just think that this might be a poor example of the point you're trying to make.)

"The Dems behave like a PR or ad agency shifting their slogans to attract roughly 55% or 60% of the masses, and their target audience is usually quite ignorant about world threats, macro-econonomic issues vis-a-vis taxes and capitalism, civics such as the 3 branches of gov't and presidential war powers...........you name it.......if it's an important topic, the Dems rely on a mainsteam media that will NOT make the subject clear and understandable!"

I love it. Three years ago when Bush was flying onto an aircraft carrier and declaring Mission Accomplished, the polls showed an overwhelming majority of the country supported the president and the war in Iraq. Republicans ran around with their chests puffed out and declared anyone who disagreed with them to be traitors or saddam apologists. Unfortunately the mission was far from accomplished and soon the american people would come to realize that the war itself was a mistake and the execution of it was marred by hubris and incompetence. Support for the President and the war collapsed not because they were spun into believing those evil MSM folks (who, BTW are mostly owned by Repubublicans) but because of the facts on the ground. The facts were not pretty and they are still not pretty. Yes, the situation in Iraq has improved but there are still soldiers dying and being wounded in the country. Iraq still is without electricity for most of the day, the water situation is poor and getting worse and most ominous of all, the central government is disfunctional and rife with corruption. Those are facts but they are a lot less appealing than the "things are better!" narrative you're trying to sell. The American
people have not suddenly turned stupid. They may have been fooled once into supporting a president and war out of fear, especially after 9/11 but they are not going to do so again. I really hope Republicans adopt your strategy of calling the electorate too stupid to understand the brilliance of George Bush's war. It will ensure we have another Clinton in the White House come January of '09. And before you respond, ask yourself this question, when was the last time a Republican beat a Clinton in an election.

Ooooh, I know Nick! I know!
1980!
Of course that ignores the fact that he never received a majority of votes as a Presidential candidate, and likely would have been defeated were it not for Ross Perot running as a third party candidate...
But you go ahead with your "chest puffed out" anyway partner!

Bush's visit to the returning aircraft carrier was a celebration of their mission being accomplished, despite the long road ahead to succeed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the world against the forces supporting Islamic terrorism. He specifically stated that we were in a long war in his speech in front of that famous banner. Sorry that you apparently can't read two words while listening to someone speak, and comprehend what is being said.

Nick, I've always understood "mission" to be a specific engagement with an enemy, or a specific endeavor or task to be accomplished. It is never used to label a war. I would expect Bush to use it in the correct military manner, as he was trained to be a fighter pilot. They don't let dummies fly fast movers.